Can Hawthorn succeed while ignoring the elite end of the draft?

[Marcel Proust]

I thought it was about assessing if Hawthorn could succeed while largely ignoring the elite end of the draft. While it is true that for Hawthorn, not winning a flag in a four year period is a failure in terms of our average flag hit rate since I was born, I do think it is probably a little too soon to assess the overall strategy.

Do you seriously think list strategies can be assessed in 4 year chunks? Lucky we won that flag in 2008, otherwise you'd have said in 2010 that Hawthorn had failed with their 'hit the draft' strategy in the early to mid 2000's based on the window you are assessing in, despite being on the edge of a 3-peat at that point. I think you probably need around an 8 year window to fully assess a trading/drafting strategy. Perhaps a little less when your strategy is trading in 23-26 year elite talent, but I think we've still got at least a couple of years to assess the impact of that strategy before success/failure can be called.

Stalin did 5 year plans

I think your right four years is too early - Clarko needs four more at least. I am not sure if will be the patient however?

 

[hk89]

b/f results are not of much importance given hawthorn is currently a mediocre team & the older players are still seemingly important to the structure and playing a lot of TOG

Hawthorn were mediocre at the start of the year. They were considerably less so in the last third of the year. A few of those older players are certainly important for structure, McEvoy and Frawley especially. Very few others are. Henderson had a great year, but wingers tend not to be key drivers of success, more cherry on top players that make good teams better.

over the course of the year the hawks were the 9th best team.

Yes, we were terrible in the first half and a bit of the season. Partly due to taking a while to rejig our midfield into a workable unit after losing the reigning brownlow medalist from a part of the ground we had already lacked depth in. We'll get him back, and we'd developed some workable depth by the end of the year.

WCE had a bad game but its most likely an aberration given the 24months pool of data.

WCE had two bad games against us this year though. I know bad kicking is bad footy, but it would have been two big losses for them instead of one very narrow win and one very large loss if we'd managed to kick straight in the first game. They only beat us by 15 last year too, so I'd say the idea that WC are a vastly superior team to us isn't well supported by the results.

Kelly is a significant addition for the short-long term also

They'll need him if they are going to get close next time we play, given we get Mitchell back and the fact that we seemed to have their measure this year. Like I said, Kelly didn't help Geelong against us this year once our form had turned the corner.

sounds good in theory but yet to see how it plays out or if its viable

Yup, might not be. Geelong have been largely following the same strategy, and haven't been able to make a GF in recent years. Interestingly they too spent a year or two switching gears and hitting the draft a little more than they had. IMO Geelong have been a little unlucky not have already succeeded with this method, may have won the flag in 2013 if they won the prelim against us. Have also not had the injury luck they had in their 2007-2011 flags where they were able to get pretty much everyone close to fully fit at the right time. Flags are not easy to win, which is partly why I think having that as your only metric for the success/failure of a strategy probably isn't ideal. A strategy that could have won flags with a little more luck falling your way is still a decent strategy IMO. We've not got close yet ourselves. Hopefully we can at least win a final next year - I think we can at least make the 8 with a continuation of the latter season form, but obviously form can be fickle, so we'll see.

 

[hk89]

Stalin did 5 year plans

I'm not sure killing a massive chunk of your population is a plan, but it does indeed seem that this is what many are advocating as the best way forward, "get rid of all your older players and start again from scratch". Stalin was a big fan of the purge. His club members never seemed to fair well from it though.

I think your right four years is too early - Clarko needs four more at least. I am not sure if will be the patient however?

His success has bought himself some time from the board, whether he himself finally gets tempted by some big money and a list full of early picks before the results of the current experiment are fully evident is another thing.

 

[philohk]

I thought your point "Yeah, this list age stuff is honestly rubbish" was a bad one and wrong. Maybe others do too and thats why its at 300+ pages

It was in response to the people who go to draftguru, look at the average age and think we have a bunch of pensioners running around. Perhaps you're one of them, perhaps not. My point is that more than most sides, that age was dragged up this year by older players who either did not play at all or had minimal impact. At most clubs, those players play. At ours, we had two out with continual injury (Birchall and Schoenmakers), one retired but still on the list (Langford), one forced out (Rough - the only one who got any game time) and a few picked up for depth (Mirra, Mohr and Minchington).

All of those players, who pushed the average age up without improving us, are now gone (save Langford, still officially on the list but won't be soon). So the actual age in realistic terms is not how it appears. Get it? Again, yes, I know this happens to an extent with other clubs, but I think at Hawthorn it's been particularly pronounced this year.

 

[Vindicater]

I thought it was about assessing if Hawthorn could succeed while largely ignoring the elite end of the draft. While it is true that for Hawthorn, not winning a flag in a four year period is a failure in terms of our average flag hit rate since I was born, I do think it is probably a little too soon to assess the overall strategy.

Do you seriously think list strategies can be assessed in 4 year chunks? Lucky we won that flag in 2008, otherwise you'd have said in 2010 that Hawthorn had failed with their 'hit the draft' strategy in the early to mid 2000's based on the window you are assessing in, despite being on the edge of a 3-peat at that point. I think you probably need around an 8 year window to fully assess a trading/drafting strategy. Perhaps a little less when your strategy is trading in 23-26 year elite talent, but I think we've still got at least a couple of years to assess the impact of that strategy before success/failure can be called.

I think you take the thread too seriously.

 

[TylerDurden]

He also said he was facing mental health issues.

He never said this. If you're referring to his BnF speech, he said the fun had gone out of the game for him, and that he'd recaptured it.

Play on.

 

[hawkman]

Stalin did 5 year plans

I think your right four years is too early - Clarko needs four more at least. I am not sure if will be the patient however?

Hit the draft at the end of 2015 so technically next year would be the 4th year of the plan. Although this season we will likely have 2 top 20 picks. Does that mean this thread is no longer valid?

 

[threesixpio]

What’s the elite end? Pick 11 and an early F/S? If so, this thread will likely close which saddens me.

 

[HairyO]

You can can call it rubbish but that fact remains the hawks are largely rolling our all the old heads to try find some wins, no enough to plays finals of course:

McEvoy - 30yoa - 19games
Strattion - 30 - 19
Smith - 31 - 19
Frawley - 31 - 18
Henderson - 31 - 22
Puopolo - 32 - 22
Burgoyne - 37 - 18



Its yet to be seen how good Hanrahan, Patton, Hardwick, Scimshaw etc. actually are or are going to be alot of many of that group.

Hawks fans seem to love typing - "the best & fariest result. Five of the top six players are under 25!" - it sounds nice but its overlooking the fact hawthorn are currently a mediocre side hence the b/f means very little.

Why is Richo in your team of the century ?

He played in a side which was complete garbage his entire career.

 

[On Topic]

If Hawks can rejuvenate the list to become competitive and be a threat for a premiership over a 2-3 year window, I'd call that a successful list management strategy. Winning the premiership takes more than just having a good-great list.

Although we have "ignored" the elite end of the draft, we have traded in quality players so it isn't like the list is without talent anyway.

Can Hawthorn succeed? Yes, I think we can. Will we succeed? *shrugs*

 

[Blackhawk42]

You can can call it rubbish but that fact remains the hawks are largely rolling our all the old heads to try find some wins, no enough to plays finals of course:

McEvoy - 30yoa - 19games
Strattion - 30 - 19
Smith - 31 - 19
Frawley - 31 - 18
Henderson - 31 - 22
Puopolo - 32 - 22
Burgoyne - 37 - 18



Its yet to be seen how good Hanrahan, Patton, Hardwick, Scimshaw etc. actually are or are going to be alot of many of that group.

Hawks fans seem to love typing - "the best & fariest result. Five of the top six players are under 25!" - it sounds nice but its overlooking the fact hawthorn are currently a mediocre side hence the b/f means very little.

I wouldn't expect anyone outside of Hawthorn supporters to notice, but you've severely underrated Hardwick having him in that group. He is (and will continue to be) to us what Grimes was to Richmond before the whole footy public finally realised just how good he is.

 

[Nugett]

What’s the elite end? Pick 11 and an early F/S? If so, this thread will likely close which saddens me.

elite would be doing a gold coast/Carlton/Melbourne so we whinge bitch moan about being crap and getting top 5 draft picks on a yearly basis. So doubt if pick 11 is going to be elite enough . Also appears every player that is over 20 has To be delisted/traded out. So we only keep the ones that were selected in the top 5 that’s under 20 years of age.

 

[Foucault1989]

Nobody would take Taranto over Worpel. If you are that confident then go and start a poll on the polls board and see which player the majority will vote for.

What? Don't you mean no one would take Worpel over Taranto?

 

[Sonny Hayes]

What? Don't you mean no one would take Worpel over Taranto?

Probably a pretty good duo to track and compare over the coming years to be honest.

Possibly the two best young inside mid's in the AFL at the moment playing a similar role and looking like stars of the future. Look forward to following both of them next season.

 

[Foucault1989]

Probably a pretty good duo to track and compare over the coming years to be honest.

Possibly the two best young inside mid's in the AFL at the moment playing a similar role and looking like stars of the future. Look forward to following both of them next season.

How do you define "young"? Cripps? Oliver? Bont? Dunkley? All fairly young and all better than those two, especially Worpel. I have Worpel in the tier below some of the most talented young mids in the competition.

Cripps, Bont, Kelly, Taranto, McCluggage, Walsh, Oliver, Dunkley.

Worpel is in the next category. He may push into that group this year but right now it's time to calm down

 

[Sonny Hayes]

How do you define "young"? Cripps? Oliver? Bont? Dunkley? All fairly young and all better than those two, especially Worpel. I have Worpel in the tier below some of the most talented young mids in the competition.

Cripps, Bont, Kelly, Taranto, McCluggage, Walsh, Oliver, Dunkley.

Worpel is in the next category. He may push into that group this year but right now it's time to calm down

Well i have those guys except for Walsh as established stars although they still have plenty of footy ahead of them. Mccluggage fits the age bracket but i was talking about the pure inside mids.

You won't find many that rate Walsh higher than i do but he is not currently a better player than Worpel.

 

[Foucault1989]

Well i have those guys except for Walsh as established stars although they still have plenty of footy ahead of them. Mccluggage fits the age bracket but i was talking about the pure inside mids.

You won't find many that rate Walsh higher than i do but he is not currently a better player than Worpel.

Well we are two biased supporters who could argue that comparison until the cows come home.

Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps you should have said "inside mids taken in the past 3 drafts".

 

[Sonny Hayes]

Well we are two biased supporters who could argue that comparison until the cows come home.

Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps you should have said "inside mids taken in the past 3 drafts".

I don't really think so to be honest, bias aside i think Worpel in 2019 was just clearly a better player (to be expected with an extra year in the system). Not to say he will will or won't end up the better player but currently i think he is clearly just ahead of him.

 

[Foucault1989]

I don't really think so to be honest, bias aside i think Worpel in 2019 was just clearly a better player (to be expected with an extra year in the system). Not to say he will will or won't end up the better player but currently i think he is clearly just ahead of him.

Statistically Worpel is slightly in front in a few key areas but I'm surprised as how close it is considering Worpel's physical maturity and extra year in the system. I think Walsh is a more rounded midfielder in that he is a genuine hybrid inside/outside mid.

 

[Sonny Hayes]

Statistically Worpel is slightly in front in a few key areas but I'm surprised as how close it is considering Worpel's physical maturity and extra year in the system. I think Walsh is a more rounded midfielder in that he is a genuine hybrid inside/outside mid.

Yeah like i said i think Walsh is fantastic and is going to be a star for many years so i think he is doing amazingly well. Just not sure you can put Walsh in with those other players you had in a higher tier but leave out Worpel.

 

[TylerDurden]

How do you define "young"? Cripps? Oliver? Bont? Dunkley? All fairly young and all better than those two, especially Worpel. I have Worpel in the tier below some of the most talented young mids in the competition.

Cripps, Bont, Kelly, Taranto, McCluggage, Walsh, Oliver, Dunkley.

Worpel is in the next category. He may push into that group this year but right now it's time to calm down

Bulk of the players you mention were taken years ago. Worpel's just won a BnF in his second year. Reckon you need to calm down.

 

[Foucault1989]

Bulk of the players you mention were taken years ago. Worpel's just won a BnF in his second year. Reckon you need to calm down.

I clearly asked for the posters definition of "young". Are you old when you get to 22?

 

[hk89]

I clearly asked for the posters definition of "young". Are you old when you get to 22?

No, but you're two years older than Worpel.

There is only one player in the list of young players you've listed as being ahead of Worpel that is younger than him, and that is Walsh (who coincidentally plays for the club you support), and Worpel arguably had a better year than him. You've included Cripps and Kelly who are 4 and 5 years older than Worpel (for the record I'd be surprised if Worpel surpasses either of those two, but we are talking two of the very best mids in the competition, not just best 'young' mids, and they are both starting to push the boundary of what I'd consider young when the context is comparison to Worpel, Kelly is closer in age to 29 year old Dangerfield than he is to Worpel).

 

[Foucault1989]

No, but you're two years older than Worpel.

There is only one player in the list of young players you've listed as being ahead of Worpel that is younger than him, and that is Walsh (who coincidentally plays for the club you support), and Worpel arguably had a better year than him. You've included Cripps and Kelly who are 4 and 5 years older than Worpel (for the record I'd be surprised if Worpel surpasses either of those two, but we are talking two of the very best mids in the competition, not just best 'young' mids, and they are both starting to push the boundary of what I'd consider young when the context is comparison to Worpel, Kelly is closer in age to 29 year old Dangerfield than he is to Worpel).

I was talking about Josh Kelly not Tim Kelly.

So the boundaries you've put in the debate is the best inside midfielder from the past 3 drafts? That's perfectly fine. Worpel has probably shown more than most young mids drafted in the past three years. It will be interesting to see if others go past him when they physically mature as well

 

[Pessimistic]

Hawks 2009:

30: -
29: Dew, Croad
28: -
27: Bateman

the hawks had 3 players aged over 26. This season the hawks got about 140 games out of the blokes in the 30/over age bracket.


just quietly too they had not ignored the elite end of the draft at that time:

Hodge - 24
Lewis - 22
Roughead - 22
Franklin - 22
Birchill - 21
Rioli - 19


'09: youngest side, 2nd least experienced.
'19: Hawthorn are now the oldest team in the league (according to 'draftguru' anyway)*

Yep. You can talk forever about ‘old ‘ sides, but young teams just dont win premierships

Any number of people writing off hodge as ‘finished’ in 2011-12. Including many hawks fans. You never know